‘Beneficent’ Democrats: Stop ‘helping’ |

‘Beneficent’ Democrats: Stop ‘helping’

A recurring theme at the Democrats’ Philadelphia convention was the party’s vow to support and fight for the middle class. Yet these same “progressives” are determined to turn back innovative sharing initiatives that have made a meaningful difference for middle-income earners.

Whereas Sen. Elizabeth Warren spoke of Democrats standing up for the middle class, she (along with Sens. Brian Schatz and Dianne Feinstein) have focused their firepower against the short-term rental startup Airbnb. CNBC reports they are demanding that the Federal Trade Commission investigate whether it’s driving up costs and/or exacerbating housing shortages.

Airbnb insists most of its clients “are middle-class people who depend on home sharing … to make ends meet,” Investor’s Business Daily reports.

Writes Airbnb’s Chris Lehane: “According to a study conducted by former National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, the typical Airbnb host makes approximately $7,530 by sharing their home 66 days per year.”

With regard to ride-sharing services Uber and Lyft, Ms. Warren, in a May speech, railed against their inherent “dangers,” echoing the party line.

In today’s on-demand “sharing” economy, Democrats focus on protecting deep-pocket political interests, be it unionized hotel workers or taxicab cartels in cities under Democrat administrations. “Progressivism” simply is another word for “protectionism” — in political servitude to the status quo.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.